This response is itself jazz. I like it.Agent27 said:Pretty much every rule that stipulates what HAS to be present in order for it to be called jazz can be and has been broken.
Kinda like trying to 'splain to someone how to tie their shoes ------ over the phone, eh?Al Stevens said:Jazz cannot be described in words that cannot be used to describe other forms of music. Jazz cannot be described in words that would allow someone who had never heard it to understand what it is.
This seems like a perfect illustration of Agent27's point. Many would argue that this is precisely the opposite of what jazz really is: that the jazz musician's role is impersonal, like that of a preacher, and is defined, primarily and fundamentally, by his or her relationship with the tradition, or as, Oliver Nelson put it, the Blues and the Abstract Truth.slobberchops said:It's about a musician's relationship with her audience...a jazz musician communicates her own message directly with her audience (muso->audience). Jazz is personal.
I disagree. A fine performance of classical music is as much or more about interpretation than is the typical performance of jazz.slobberchops said:...classical performer is essentially a middleman, facilitating communication between composer and audience (composer->muso->audience).
I didn't mean to belittle the classical performer's role, just to point out that I think that her musical role is fundamnetally different from a jazz performer's role. A classical performer is analgous to an actor, and yes indeed, a fine performance of Macbeth on the boards is a thing of skill and beauty, just as a performance of a Beethoven sonata in the right hands is a wonderful moment of music. And therein lies the difference... we talk about wonderful performances *of Shakespeare*, or *of Beethoven*. The performer and the composer are a combined musical force, the performer striving to get into the composer's head, and then getting that across to her audience. I get the feeling that in jazz, the composer hardly figures in the performance. She provides the head and some changes, but as performers, do we really care? Does anyone really think they are getting into Gershwin's head and trying to convey *Gershwin's* emotions to the audience when in the midst of a solo on I Got Rhythm? Surely as jazz performers we strive to bring something of *us* rather than the composer to our audience. Whereas the classicist is like an actor, the jazzer is like a bard/stroyteller/racconteur.Al Stevens said:I disagree. A fine performance of classical music is as much or more about interpretation than is the typical performance of jazz.
Most jazz is not much more than a series of licks. It doesn't have to be that way, but that's how it's interpreted by the average jazz musician.
A jazz pianist once told me that playing Mozart was just "playing somebody else's ideas." But Mozart had so many more ideas than he had.